You would not believe the tactics the Wikipedians are using to keep the following two sentences out of Wikipedia. Or maybe you would......

In 2018, during the first debate betweeen O'Rourke and Ted Cruz, O'Rourke claimed that he had not tried to leave the scene of the drunk driving accident. His claim was rated as false by The Washington Post's fact checker, Glenn Kessler, who found that police reports from the incident corroborated the fact that O'Rourke had attempted to leave the scene.[115]

I think my favourites is the way the Wikipediots are trying to perform their own analysis to debunk/discredit the source, which is of course forbidden (and extremely hilarious when shitbird Volunteer Marek is on scene, stating "We stick to facts and sources").

Second favourite is Drmies saying this.....

there is mention of the accident, of course, and it might fit there--but that's a matter of discussion, and what needs to be discusses is if one mention by one fact-checker about one statement of his about something from decades ago is worth mentioning there.

This is the same Drmies whose mantra in every other case is that if reliable sources see fit to mention something, that is evidence of significance. This is the highest level of source choosing to devote an entire analysis to this one apparently false claim, even though it harms a candidate they presumably want to succeed.

Administrator Drmies of course had nothing to say about the impermissible nature of the analysis going on just above his own comment. Nor has he done anything about the edit warring, JesseRafe having reverted three different editors to prevent this content from being part of Wikipedia's settled reality. Their one and only contribution to the talk page has been to speak as much about his opponents as the merits of the disputed content.

Anyone who thinks Wikipedia doesn't have a massive bias problem, really needs to explain stuff like this. Because it happens all day, every day. And Wikipedia's Administrators, Drmies being one of their most trusted and respected, aren't policing it or preventing it, they are active facilitators of it.

Look at the talkpage. Connolley, Drmies, Sandstein, Activist, Sagecandor and assorted other "people who should know better" are all in there meddling. People are screaming at each other, and striking out comments posted by others. Jesus.

Sagecandor just got caught socking for two years to evade a ban on writing political content, during which time he managed to average 20 edits a day. Unbelievably, despite him being a former Administrator who is still, even after being caught, trying to deceive people about his true knowledge of the system, they are offering him a deal of simply going away for six months, and they are even prepared to take into account his clean block while he was socking.

I challenge anyone to find such generous terms being offered to someone with the polar opposite political views but similar history of the sort of editing problems and blatant and brazen deception this guy has.

Wikipedians are so blind to their biases, Cullen, hailed as "one of their best" Administrators, had only days earlier, left Sage this glowing praise......

Thank youConsider this a barnstar, or a certificate suitable for framing, or a kitten, or a warm cuppa tea. Your choice. You saw an historical event in the making and immediately started creating articles about important and notable secondary topics. I am speaking, of course, of Mark Judge and the very impressive Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, which is developing nicely. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

With the article barely 36 hours old and dumped in Wikipedia as a 33KB piece with no less than fifty references, he will, of course, not have had any time to properly review it for neutrality or sourcing, problems with which being what got Sage sanctioned in the first place.

Guy Chapman has this on his user page (now shifted to a sub-page).....

So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia.

It is the conclusion of a long winded rant, titled "On politics".

The governing policy for this sort of thing is WP:POLEMIC, which says....

you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute

It is inarguable that the statement fails the policy, because the only way this statement is likely to be uncontroversial, is if the following propositions hold (based on WP:COMPETENCE, the page Guy links to by way of explanation).

-Supporting Trump is an indication you are illiterate (presumably because if you can read, you would be persuaded by all the sources Wikipedia considers reliable, that you are a fool or evil, and would therefore stop supporting Trump)

-Supporting Trump is an indication you are incapable of identifying reliable sources. In other words, you do not accept the Wikipedia position that every word that appears in Breitbart or the Daily Mail, is a politically motivated fabrication

-Supporting Trump is an indication you are incapable of explaining yourself to others, and that if you find yourself in the minority in a Wikipedia debate, instead of respecting consenus, you will probably start shooting people

-Supporting Trump is an indication you are probably not going to realise you are too stupid/biased/evil to be editing Wikipedia articles like Abortion or Immigration, meaning the Wikipedians who are competent will have to waste their time cleaning up after you

As I hope even screaming hardcore Democrats would accept, these statements are ridiculous and offensive, and if it became known they were the uncontroversial view of the Wikipedia Administration, there would be hell to pay. In other words, bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

What is also disreputable about this statement, is that it appears to advocate the banning of Trump supporters from Wikipedia not for what they do on Wikipedia, but what they believe. Wikipedia does that already of course - if you turn up and declare you think sex with children should be legal, or if you turn up and say Mexicans are vermin, you are toast. But this level of offensiveness, is where it usually stops. You are not, for example, banned from Wikipedia for saying you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, even though the statement is homophobic. You would be banned only if you started adding that to articles.

In case anyone is confused about whether or not Guy really does mean Trump supporters should be banned for what they believe, not what they do, he was nice enough to confirm it.....

if you come to Wikipedia to state that astrology is true, that the two state solution is the only acceptable outcome, that gay marriage is legitimate and beyond question, or that Christianity is the only truth about the world, you are not competent to edit. And that is the situation with Trump. Anybody who sincerely believes Trump to be a good president, should not, in my opinion, be here. And I explained why. What that means is that I will not give the time of day to people who try to argue that Trump is a good man. I am talking here about the kinds of people who say that God anointed Trump. That is disqualifying. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no mention here at all, that the editor needs to do anything at all, not least do something considered disruptive, for Guy to consider them unfit to edit. The obvious conclusion being, as a Wikipedia Administrator, he intends to use his power to block people, to ensure they cannot edit.

It would not be so hilarious, if Guy could at least be consistent in his own views. In the same post I quote above, he also clarifies "Gay marriage is a political question on which reasonable people may differ", to counter the suggestion the conclusion of his rant implies he would be fine with the statement "believing in gay marriage indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia." As we know already, openly stating such a belief does not lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Even though it probably should, because it is inarguable that "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" or variants, is no mere political view in today's society, but a homophobic statement. The Wikimedia Foundation is meant to be about tolerance and inclusion, their Terms of Use imply the mere utterence of homophobia, should lead to a ban.

This is Wikipedia. They're biased as fuck, they're not even consistent in their biases, and they don't care who knows it. They flaunt it.

It seems clear, ironically, that Guy has already shown he needs to be blocked for lacking the WP:COMPETENCE required to be a Wikipedia editor. But this is Wikipedia. You cannot block Guy Chapman. He is Wikipedia.

Classic Guy Chapman bullshit. You can spot the "real insiders" just by the keep/delete votes--the suck-ups will fight to keep this crap.

Guy thinks "his reality" is the only one and he has contempt for all other "realities". Pity he's such a shrieking numbnut with a limited intellect. If he's so damn smart, why is he working for Dell Computers UK as an office drone, and serving as an unpaid volunteer admin (and posting ranting screeds) on Wikipedia? And THIS part, damn....

f you believe the government should do nothing to mitigate climate change, I will respectfully disagreeIf you believe that climate change is a hoax, you are objectively wrong and not competent to edit climate change articlesIf you believe that policies that make rich people richer will improve the lot of everyone through Trickle-down economics, I will respectfully disagreeIf you believe that unfettered free markets are the only way to run a country, you are objectively wrongIf you believe that abortion should be illegal, I will respectfully disagreeIf you believe in abstinence-only sex education, you are objectively wrong and probably not competent to edit in that areaIf you believe that socialised healthcare is evil I will respectfully disagree

Guy does not "respectfully disagree" with anyone. If a conservative tries to edit Wikipedia content, Guy non-respectfully blocks and humiliates them. If they say it in public, he goes on his pathetic blog and embarrasses himself. (Or he DID, until he pulled it down in 2017.) Fucking liar.

Even though I tend to agree with him on his political and other positions, Mr. Chapman is a loose ranting screw and should not have control over anything. Dammit.

The bias problem is clear from the way the Wikipedians are claiming to be confused as to how the JzG essay farce is a matter for ArbCom. They can't be incompetent, because they like the essay (this will be the new way competence is assessed). So let's see if we can't break it down for them.....

1. Any editor that assists a policy (WP:POLEMIC) being undermined through lies or deliberate misrepresentations, is a disruptive editor

2. Any disruptive editor that the community can't or won't sanction, has to ultimately be dealt with by ArbCom, Wikipedia's backstop for ensuring it is always policy and not a mob that dictates what is and is not acceptable behaviour

3. ArbCom is a particularly appropriate venue when the group of disruptive editors includes several Administrators, and a key component of why the policy is being ignored by the deceitful mob, is because one Administrator (JzG) lacks the good judgement required to be an Administrator and created a situation where a mob rising up to support the voiding of a policy was inevitable.

If people are still confused as to how this violates WP:POLEMIC, the massive idiot BullRangifer has yet again detailed exactly what the problem is (while of course not seeing it as problem, because following policy is very inconvenient for someone with his beliefs).......

Statement by BullRangiferI note that some believe that editors should keep their political opinions off Wikipedia, and that they have no relevance to the project. That may well be true in some cases, but this case is very different.

Here we have JzG's clear elucidation of the fact that an editor's political POV can negatively affect their competence to edit political subjects. It is their editing that is the primary problem, not their political POV, yet it's a fact that it affects their editing. Trump constantly attacks RS, and his war on RS must be resisted and not affect us. Unfortunately we have many editors who believe RS are fake news, and they get that idea from Trump. Being a diehard Trump supporter has serious consequences for editing here. It creates a serious CIR problem. If an editor can't vet sources, or they believe what Trump says about RS, they fail one of the most basic qualifications for editing here.

Thus we see that JzG is not merely expressing his personal POV, but directly addressing a serious problem which affects editing and discussions on our political articles. The editors who create disruption by treating Trump's conspiracy theories as fact sometimes get topic banned, not because they are Trump supporters, but because that fact causes them to be fringe editors who advocate views found in unreliable sources. JzG would not block them for their political views, but would likely block any such editor who edits disruptively, as these editors often do.

Softlavender and Dlohcierekim make good points. This very case (and the attacks against the essay) proves JzG is right, and I suggest this counts for enshrining and protecting his essay as valuable to the project.

This case should be dismissed, and those who attack the essay should learn from it, because it exposes the sore spots that make them less valuable as editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

His entire case is that supporting Trump makes you incompetent to edit. JzG has tried to claim otherwise, but that is the essential meaning of his essay. Getting BullRangifer and all the other biased as fuck partisan editors to say stuff like this during editing disputes, is exactly what the essay is for.

The unfortunate FACT for BullRantifer is that it is and always will be an OPINION, specifically a supposition unsupported by the evidence or any kind of well reasoned argument (deranged Trump haters putting their derangement down on paper is not a rational argument). Most obvious reason being they can't know why anyone supports Trump (merely being an asshole is not against Wikipedia policy, before this essay was accepted by the community, because mob, you had to actually do something bad when you edit to be banned, because policy).

If they want it to be a fact, they would have to show it is widely accepted. It is not, and one proof of that is how disputed the essay is. If it was such a well argued case, if it was so well grounded in policy and common sense, it should have been a SNOW keep, UNLESS, and this is again what probably motivated the essay, we are to believe there are countless supposed incompetents within the established core group of Wikipedia editors, who just can't see its inherent truthiness.

If the wider world ever got wind of the fact this is what Wikipedia believes, there would be a controversy, it would bring Wikipedia into disrepute, therefore it does violate WP:POLEMIC. Anyone who tried to argue that is not a fact, is lying, and deliberately so. Because they want this horrible essay to become policy. Or they are indeed, incompetent.

Now I've laid it all out, watch the Wikipedians, right up to the hallowed members of ArbCom, pretend like they don't even know what I'm talking about...